InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

OK,

My premise is that people of any sex, creed, color, level of fitness, and "attractiveness" can be valid subjects of figure photography and photos of those subjects should be welcome in this forum and not be criticized based on the attractiveness of the model.

My sub-premise is that a model that many would find less attractive than a "perfect" human specimen might allow other aspects of an image to be better evaluated. I think this is just human nature. When we see an image of a model that we find very attractive, it's a bit harder to look at the photographic aspects critically. This is especially true if only one image is offered up for review at a time. If you give me four or five shots of someone that's very attractive, I can probably tell you which I think is best and why. Show me one, and I might be at a loss to find anything substantive to say about it.

John Frim obviously disagrees with me.



I think I answered the first question above. Yes, everyone is a valid subject. You don't have to look if you don't like the model. I notice you assumed a female subject, how typical, LOL.

As to the second point you were trying to make, I'm sorry, that's not a valid example to illustrate what I stated. To follow that line of logic, I would remove the figure from a figure study and replace it with some inanimate object.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Of course the subject needs to have interest but some people are narrow minded in their interests. In terms of people photography, only if your interests are in art and photography will you will look beyond the pedestrian appeal of youth and surface attractiveness to a deeper view of art and beauty.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Precisely my point. You nailed it. Perhaps ALL photos posted here for the purpose of soliciting comments on pose, lighting, background, props, etc, should use manikins as subjects. In fact, maybe we should standardize on the "Volvo Family" of crash test dummies; that way every photographer would have a common starting point, and model attributes are totally out of the discussion.

This is nonsense. Photographers choose their models because there is something they find appealing, or that they want to "expose", in the attributes of the person.

I believe there are 2 classes of negative comments about the model -- and yes, to keep it simple, let's stick with women.

The first would be an expression of a personal preference for certain physical characteristics of models. Tattooed or not, long vs short hair, shaven vs not, piercings or none, heavy set ("Rubenesque") or not; dark skinned or light skinned, tan marks or none, heavy makeup or natural, etc vs etc. I believe that these are predominantly the sorts of comments that you have said are inappropriate or not helpful because there is little or nothing the photographer can do about these attributes. And guess what -- I agree with you in that these comments have nothing to do with the photographer and his talents/technique. They are merely an expression of the viewer's preference for women. Try as you may, you will not stop these sorts of comments.

The second class of negative critique would be the suitability of the model as the main subject of the intended message in the photo. If you were trying to show youth you would not choose an elderly lady (Note: I was told by "an old woman teacher" that there are no old women, just elderly ladies) as the subject. If you were intending to show smooth bodyscapes you would not choose someone disfigured by arthritis. If you were trying to show a "beautiful smile" you would not choose someone with missing and rotting teeth. If you were trying to show the joy/beauty of health and physical fitness you would not choose someone obese. If you were doing a photo shoot of a formal place of business you would look for models with suits, not ripped jeans and tank tops.

I think commenting on the model in these latter cases is justified. While the comments clearly come across as negative attributes of the model, they really are more of a critique of the photographer for not having done due diligence in accentuating the positive and diminishing the negatives about the model. Simplest case in point -- you don't take a portrait of someone with a large hooked nose from the side or from the front with a wide angle lens at close distance. Of course, if want a scary look, get the long-beaked witch with the wart on the nose; a gorgeous button-nosed young lady would simply not fit the bill.

ISO, you might think we disagree on many issues, but I don't think we are really far apart on this one. The model is a part of the entire image and contributes greatly to the overall outcome. If the model is not suited to the setting -- as perceived by the viewer -- there will be negative comments.

twr25 Loc: New Jersey

While it's true about Somatotypes, I try to make the model look as good as possible and downplay faults; unless I choose her for the faults. Both are valid … I'm more interested in technique, lighting, backgrounds, poses etc.

mikeg492 Loc: WIlmington, NC

Why wouldn't you try to find a flattering pose for a say non flattering model?

Stephan G

There is a third consideration. It is the "context" of the complete presentation. IOW, the "story".

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I agree with you. I've worked with models from age 25 through close to 70. It's what the photographer does with the light and shaping shadows. Perhaps too many people are spoiled by Playboy and set that as a standard.

To me, there is a considerable difference between making a nude art photo and simply taking a photograph of a naked person.
--Bob

Stephan G

And once in a while, the two are the same.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

As one art instructor informed us. The difference between being nude and being naked is defined by the reason for which one has removed their clothing.
--Bob

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I like that statement.

And applying it to the original hypotheses proposed by I-ISO, if using less attractive women as models would help critics get past the model and allow them to critique the photographic technique, why not just keep the clothes on?

Stephan G

I think that was in Art Instructor 100: Introductory Class. I wonder if they still provide it.

Art Instructor to Photography tyro: "You can get naked if you don't frighten the models."

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

No, NO, NO!!!! Nude photography is NOT about the photographer being nude!!!

Or, have I been missing something?

Stephan G

The towel?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

No need to be insulting; this is a discussion. So let's be clear, point by point.

Your main premise is that all models can be subjects for figure photography. I agree, as long as the model's characteristics support the intent/story/message of the photograph. They need not be "perfect/attractive/beautiful" if the main point is to show something else.

Your sub-premise is that "imperfect or less-than-perfect" (not your exact words) models are "better" because they provide less distraction from the elements in the photo that are to be critiqued.

Are we on the same wavelength so far?

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

John, I didn't say less attractive models were better.

To paraphrase myself, I said it might be easier for small-minded saps like you to look beyond the model and see the photographic skill or lack there of if you weren't blinded by the beauty of the subject.